"No Medical Benefits"? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 06:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have only recently started wading into the circumcision world, and know that there is still a lot of information for me to read. At this point I am definitely planning to leave my babies intact (though I still have to convince my DH. He is on the fence and clings to the 1) like father like son arguement, and 2) that "sex is better for the woman when the man is circumcised" (he doesn't have any proof of that, he just believes it. LOL). Anyway, I do have an issue that I wanted to bring up.

I see in a lot of the posts here, and elsewhere, the statement that there are "NO medical benefits" to circumcision. From my research it seems that the more accurate statement is to say that the "slight medical benefits it provides are outweighed by the medical risks." These are very different statements to me, and, again, based on the research I have done, the second sentence seems more medically accurate (e.g. the risk of UTIs is slightly lower in circumsized children, there is a slight decrease in penile cancer risk, etc. but that those benefits, to the extent they exist, are outweighed by the risks of the surgery, including, among others, complications, pain, infection, and even dealth such that on the whole it is not medically recommended or needed.)

Sometimes I wonder if the "there is NO medical benefit" statement by anti-circ activists could potentially hurt the cause. If the slight benefits are totally ignored in the rhetoric then it seems like people either aren't aware of them or are trying to assume them away, which hurts the cause because people could say that we are exaggerating or spinning the facts.

Does this make sense at all?

edited to correct statement re: sexual pleasure (see next post)
SaveTheWild is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 06:24 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I think the benefits are so slight it's safe to ignore them.

For example, the risk of penile cancer is something like 1 in 100,000. The risk of breast cancer is 1 in 9. Mastectomy at birth would have significant medical benefits, compared to the one penis that would be spared from cancer if 100,000 circs were performed.

Did you mean women like sex better with circed or uncirced men? It says uncirced men in your post. I suspect that all women are different, and that most would be open to both. At the risk of TMI, I'll say that with both oral sex and sexual intercourse I did not notice any difference.

BTW, they sell vibrators that are made to feel like an uncut man. Women buy them, so it must not be a bad thing after all!

As for UTI, breastfeeding offers the same protection. And about looking like dad, well, if you had a daughter, would she look like you? I have a tattoo, but that's no reason to give my baby one. I think fathers and sons generally don't spend a lot of time comparing their penises.

My dh's mind was changed when he read the Fleiss articles.
Greaseball is offline  
#3 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 06:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Greaseball,

thansk for the reply. oops, I did mean circumsized, not uncirc'd. I fixed it.

His sexual pleasure theory is that the distinct lip or ridge or whatever it is called (where the head meets the shaft) causes more sexual pleasure for the woman than does the smoother shape of an intact one. I doubt that is true, but can't really verify it through personal experience...

Also, forgot to add, he had a friend in school who had to be circumcised at 14, and it was very traumatic for him at that age, so he is afraid of that too...


but back to the main topic...does the "reactionary" language of "No medical benefit" lessen the credibility of anti-circ activists?
SaveTheWild is offline  
#4 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 06:52 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
//
mattemma04 is offline  
#5 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 07:06 PM
 
house elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
His sexual pleasure theory is that the distinct lip or ridge or whatever it is called (where the head meets the shaft) causes more sexual pleasure for the woman than does the smoother shape of an intact one.
He does know that the foreskin retracts, right?

I wonder if this page would be beneficial to him. I know my formerly pro-circ DH was surprised that these were intact penises.

It does have pictures of erect penises, so steet clear if that kind of thing offends you (or if you are at work!)
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html
house elf is offline  
#6 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 07:20 PM
 
Ackray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Sea
Posts: 2,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that it would be best for him to do the research and try to find articles and information supporting his side of this to convince you. I haven't looked, but I doubt that there is very much info out there saying what a great beneficial thing it is to circ. While researching he is going to come across all of the many reasons not to do it and will hopefully change his side of the debate.

I have never bought the like father like son thing... No ones's penis looks just like another and do people really sit there and compare!? And I have always heard the oppocite about the intercourse feeling better for both men and women topic.

Good Luck!
Ackray is offline  
#7 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 07:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thanks all for your ideas for convincing DH. Ackray, I definetly think your point is really important...why should I have to convince him, let him try to convince me. I am definitely interestied in looking at the photos on the circumstitions page...but I will wait until I get home from work. LOL.

but, back to the main issue again...

Are we doing the cause a disservice when we deny the existence of the medical benefits that might exist, even if they are slight?
SaveTheWild is offline  
#8 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 07:46 PM
 
~Jenna~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wish I could remember where I was reading this info I found, but some newer studies are showing that circ'ing can actually increase the risk of UTI's. And I've also read that studies are also showing that circ'ing doesn't protect against sexually transmitted diseases either...so I say there are NO medical benefits, not even slight ones.
~Jenna~ is offline  
#9 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 09:17 PM
Banned
 
somemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One thing to keep in mind is that the "medical benefits" have changed over time.

Get yourself a copy of the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision by Dr. Paul M. Fleiss, a practicing pediatrician in California. Chapter 8 deals with this very question.

He states that even as late as the 60s and 70s, parents were being told that circ would "cure" masturbation, convulsions, nervousness (mental illness), night terrors, and epilepsy.

Fleiss goes on to state, "The strange fact is that the promoters of infant circumcision keep changing the list of supposed 'benefits.' As soon as one 'benefit' is disproved, they invent another one to take its place. There is no other surgery in all of medicine like this. Imagine if doctors were still trying to find justifications for other common nineteenth-century surgical horrors such as bloodletting, trepanning (drilling holes in the skull), clitoridectomy, castration, etc."

He also devotes a couple of pages to disproving the UTI link. He states, "Objective scientific studies have found that UTIs are almost exclusively limited to boys with urinary tract anomalies....the foreskin has nothing to do with this."

So, both circ'd boys and intact boys can get UTI's if their plumbing isn't "structured" right.

Also, God and/or Mother Nature knows what he/she is doing. Especially in a reproductive area, natural selection would have certainly weeded out a part of the body that was medically problematic.

So, no, I don't believe (and neither does Dr. Fleiss) that any "benefits" exist, even slightly. It's just that circ promoters keep coming up with new issues with which to scare parents, for financial/cultural/egotistical/psychological reasons that Fleiss explains in detail.

Also, around these parts, we tend to say "intact" rather than "uncirc'd." Because "uncirc'd tends to imply that it should have happened, but didn't. Also, I still have both breasts, but that does not make me "unmascetomized." And I still have my appendix, but that does not make me "unappendectomized." You get the point.
somemama is offline  
#10 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 09:26 PM
Banned
 
somemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
PS. If I may also throw in advice concerning dealing with your dh. I think you have to simultaneously take a hard line and a gentle stance. (Yes, that is possible to do both.)

You have to let him know that you love him JUST the way he is ("no, honey, of course I don't have a problem with your penis") while taking the hard-line stance that circ will not , absolutely will not, happen to your son. Only over your dead body. End of discussion.

Men tend to come to a crossroads when they have sons. Keeping a son intact often causes them to face their own circ (mutilation), which can be psychologically painful, while circ'ing a son allows them to continue in blissful denial that circ is what is "normal." A mama has got to be sensitive to her husband while also protecting her son from her husband's ego. It's a tough balancing act, but I know you can do it!

And many mamas say, "Well, I don't have a penis, so perhaps it shouldn't be my decision." Honey, you don't have to have literal balls to protect your son--ya' just gotta have "balls" as in courage!! No, you don't have a penis, but your helpless, defenseless, trusting son does. Go protect it. (This last paragraph is more in general than aimed at you.)
somemama is offline  
#11 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 09:35 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As for the "look like dad thing, I hope you realize that is for the father's benefit. That's so that he doesn't have what is confronting him in front of him all of the time. There is no benefit to the son.

As for sexual pleasure for his partner, the foreskin retracts during intercourse so that the coronal ridge is exposed. You can tell him that is a non-issue. However, the immoblie shaft skin of the circumcised penis can be a considerable source of irritation for his partner. How's that for turning the issue around on him?

There are all kinds of "supposed" medical benefits. It seems there is a new one coming out every week from those who support or profit from circumcision. However, for every study that says there is a benefit, there are two that say there is none and even far more risk from circumcision. For instance, It is said that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by 1/3. However, non-circumcising European countries have a far lower rate of penile cancer than the predominately circumcised America. How do you account for that? The fact that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Urological Association as well as every other medical association in the world has been searching for a medical benefit for more than 130 years and has yet to find one has me convinced that if one is ever found, it will be very insignificant. What do you think? I don't think we are overstating our case when we say "There are no known medical benefits." Wouldn't you agree with that? I think that is a very accurate statement of the facts.

I see a lot of exaggeration on the other side. I think that comes from not researching the issue. They tend to parrott what they have heard instead of basing their statements on medical research. However, since most everyone has heard at least some of the old myths, they tend to believe them The fact is, if you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it. That is certainly the case with this one. Is it possible that you have heard the myths for so long that they are easier to believe than the medical research? I think that may be the case. However, I do see you questioning them and I think you are about to embark on a journey of discovery. Congratulations!






Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#12 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 09:43 PM
 
Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kenmore, Washington
Posts: 6,956
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There's a website out there with just pictures of "mutilated" circs, from gay porn. I sat down with my husband to page through them. That's what convinced him, that all those "normal" men were still mutilated.

But then again, we are the kind of people who yell from the back room, "hey hon, some look at this freaky dick!"

If you're anti-porn, I don't think that tactic would work well at all.

Homebirth Midwife biggrinbounce.gif

After 4 m/c, our stillheart.gif is here!

Jane is offline  
#13 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 09:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
As for sexual pleasure for his partner, the foreskin retracts during intercourse so that the coronal ridge is exposed. You can tell him that is a non-issue.
Very good to know, thanks. He is particularly proud of his own "Coronal ridge" and is very concerned about passing it on... (OK, he is a little obsessed with it).

OK, one maybe TMI question, if anyone knows... If the coronal ridge is exposed, does it stay that way throught intercourse, or does it get covered up by the foreskin as it is moved in and out? (Wow, this is turning into the penthouse forum or something... But this is a MAJOR issue for him, so anything I can use to help out is appreciated.)
SaveTheWild is offline  
#14 of 87 Old 02-25-2004, 11:37 PM
 
house elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is another link that may answer your question (no photos here, just drawings)
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

A quote from that page:
Quote:
During intercourse the loose skin of the intact penis slides up and down the shaft of the penis, stimulating the glans and the sensitive erogenous receptors of the foreskin itself. On the outstroke the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. This is known as the `gliding mechanism.'

The gliding mechanism is Nature's intended mechanism of intercourse. As such, it contributes greatly to sexual pleasure. Also, since more of the loose skin of the penis remains inside the vagina, the woman's natural lubrication is not drawn out to evaporate to a great extent, which makes sex easier without using artificial lubricants.

The prepuce is a highly innervated and vascularized genital structure. It is entirely lined with the peripenic muscle sheet. Specialized ecoptic sebaceous glans on the inner preputial surface produce natural emollients and lubricants necessary for normal sexual function. The primary orgasmic triggers are found in the preputial orifice and frenulum. When unfolded, the prepuce is large enough to cover the length and circumference of the erect penis and acts as a natural sheath through which the shaft glides during coitus. Only the presence and functions of the prepuce allow for physiologically normal coitus to occur as designed by nature.
house elf is offline  
#15 of 87 Old 02-26-2004, 03:18 AM
 
momto3boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This reminds me of my dh. He thought in order to have a ridge you had to have one cut into you. He thought that is what circ was. He had no idea that it is there, the same as a circ guy, under the foreskin.

We did not circ our boys. And he is THANKFUL, HAPPY, JEALOUS that his sons have their whole penis.

It's one of the things he thanks me for (researching) often.
momto3boys is offline  
#16 of 87 Old 02-26-2004, 03:00 PM
 
~Megan~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 15,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My understanding about the penile/cervical cancer is that they test was done in an area where male promiscuity is very high. And since some cancer has been linked to HPV virus, an STD, its unclear how to interpret this data considering that in the culture the study was done most men had multiple prostitue partners. Whereas in America most men don't sleep with a lot of prostitutes.

I also understand that if the penis is cleaned regularly with water alone UTIs are the same as with circed men.

So given those things I can say, there is no clear or proven medical benefit.

Mom of a 7 yr old, 4 yr old, and 1 yr old. Wow. How did that happen?
~Megan~ is offline  
#17 of 87 Old 02-26-2004, 04:23 PM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by SaveTheWild
Very good to know, thanks. He is particularly proud of his own "Coronal ridge" and is very concerned about passing it on... (OK, he is a little obsessed with it).


Wow- that's bizarre. How will he know... does he really expect that his baby will have a c@c* like his? It's going to be a little itty bitty baby penis... WHAT IF he doesn't have a c@c* like his dad? What if he is born with a teeny tiny micropenis... small even on the infantile penis standard? Would he have some sort of implant or something done to the baby? Is he going to ask his teenage son to show him an erection so thy can compare their coronal ridge? Is he going to mock the guy if his is not as impressive as dad thinks his own is? And what will he do if it's not? Or what if his son has one that's even BETTER (whatever THAT means) Doesn't he realise that sexual nerves are sexual nerves? That your penis is your penis and it's the only one you get? That a guy with a little tiny penis enjoys his penis just as much as a guy with a great big one? That your sexual pleasure is YOURS and not someone else's to control, destroy or manipulate?

That there isn't much you can o to change it (I'm talking size and shape)- so you have to work with what you have and that for him to presume that what he has is excuse me... GODS gift to women... is totally concieted and dumb? Yes... DUMB... sure he might have an impressive coronal ridge... that's his opinion... glad he likes it- but what does that have to do with anyone else? His son DOES inherit his penis from his father's genetic contribution.. that should be enough stroking for dad's ego there... not only does he inherit the penis... but also the FORESKIN which will be a pretty close approximation of his father's own foreskin which he ONCE posessed (and still posesses in every string of his own dna) until some other dude with a KNIFE decided to sexually violate him and hold his little baby unit in his hand and draw his own arbitrary line between the family jewels and the biohazard garbage... some dude went cutting on his fabulous unit... would he let some other dude walk up today and just go cutting on it however he wanted without him getting any say so? Then why is he so adamant about defending the arbitrary work someone did back then... does he even know he guy's name who left that scar on his c@c*?

Seriously since when was it cool for one dude to cut another dude's penis? Since when was it cool for one DUDE to say, I know just how much penis you can get by with and if you have any more than me- I will take it from you because I don't want you to have it. You can't have more than me because I have so much insecurity about myself that I am going to project it onto everone around me... either that or I am such an immature concieted full of myself meddling dominator that I can't imagine that other men can enjoy their sex organ without ME fixing it for them.

Quote:
OK, one maybe TMI question, if anyone knows... If the coronal ridge is exposed, does it stay that way throught intercourse, or does it get covered up by the foreskin as it is moved in and out? (Wow, this is turning into the penthouse forum or something... But this is a MAJOR issue for him, so anything I can use to help out is appreciated.)
Well- this TMI question is obviously not TMI if it's information that a person who is about to permenantly apply their own crippling standard onto someone else's body needs in order to BACK OFF.

It shows for one-an IGNORANCE of the FEMALE sexual response... and anatomy...

http://health.discovery.com/centers/...ia/vagina.html
"The internal walls of the vagina itself do not have a great supply of nerve endings, thus are not very sensitive to touch. The outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains nearly 90 percent of the vaginal nerve endings and therefore is much more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel. "

Unless a couple were to conduct their intercourse in the outer third of the vagina... the coronal ridge is something that is pretty much not even being registered in female sexual perception... so the correct answer to the question is "not that it even matters" what IS being registered is the tapping of the glans on the cervix, the stretch of the muscles of the pelvic floor and the external stimulation of the clitoris.

As for your question... it all depends on how the person wants to have sex- he could have sex in a way that his glans stayed covered most of the time, or he colld do it so it was exposed most of the time... however he wants... however he likes... it's HIS perogative...

...unless his father was to barge in the room in the middle of getting down and dirty with some hottie and say, "Hey there son, I noticed that a little bit of your foreskin might be folding over your glans there on the outstroke and I don't like that one bit, no sir-eee son I don't like that at ALL- stopwhat you are doing right away or i WILL HAVE TO HOLD YOUR SHAFT SKIN TAUGHT WITH MY OWN HAND! i MUST HAVE TOTAL control over the way your penis skin moves while you have sex or I will be extremely upset! If your glans is not exposed 100% of the time while your penis is inside that girl's body I march you right down to Dr. Likestoslice and cut off half of your penis skin... YOU MUST preform exactly HOW I do... that is the DUTY of a son... It is my duty as a father to be SURE you comply- this is our family tradition!!"

Is that REALLY what your husband would be like in terms of your son's sexuality... because that's what we are talking about here.

When he puts HIS scar on his son's penis--- it's like keeping his hand there for the rest of that guy's life... a way of sexually controling that boy no matter where he is... even after his father is dead and gone- Dad will still have his grip on it- keeping that shaft skin tight.

I never used a "vaginacam" to spy on the unfurling action of a lover's foreskin when we were in the middle of intercourse... would it really matter? No... whatever it was that was happening- felt good. And I never felt like I had been rubbed raw when my lover was intact. That's because of the muscles of the vaginal floor, hugging on the base of the penis- there was still some movement there for the full length of the stroke- like nature designed it to work. Circumcision has a most definate negative effect of adding abrasive friction into the mix of other very pleasurable sensations.

Circumcision, by destroying the NORMAL sexual function of providing a movable sheath of skin which buffers the abrasion between the vagina and erectile tissue of the penis... will shift an unnaturally large responsibility of sexual comfort and function on to the FEMALE lubriation ability... you will notice that the Discovery article devoted almost half of their description of the female sex organ into a description of how females sexually malfunction by not being able to physically COMPENSATE for the unnatural immobility of the sex organ of their circumcised partrners... DUH- wake up America... it's not that women are frigid... it's that some DOCTOR- messed with a guys penis and has shifted an abnormal expectation onto a woman to compensate for American men are now sexually lacking.

"I would gladly cut your baby today, and sell his wife some Avlamil tomorrow."

Ask your husband to figure out how people, FATHERS, were buying the original anti masturbation hysteria that cutting off a forskin would stop masturbation... I'm sure he thinks the whole idea is absurd, that he can't imagine that HE has been crippled or hindered in any way... but how was it these other men even BOUGHT that idea? What did they know about having a foreskin and masturbating with one- that they could even IMAGINE that cutting it off would totally ruin a guy's enjoyment of touching himself?

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/
1888"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."

John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young," Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295."
Sarah is offline  
#18 of 87 Old 02-26-2004, 05:07 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
House Elf---

Thanks for the pics, but honestly:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Was one of the sickest things I have every seen. I am honestly about to :Puke

How anyone could possibly subject their child to that is beyond me.

 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#19 of 87 Old 02-26-2004, 05:36 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
My understanding about the penile/cervical cancer is that they test was done in an area where male promiscuity is very high.
T
Where is it NOT high?:LOL
Greaseball is offline  
#20 of 87 Old 02-26-2004, 06:22 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Megan:

The study you are refering to did not include penile cancer but you are right about there being all of those holes in it. There were many more holes in the study than just what you mentioned.



Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#21 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 06:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Sarah
Wow- that's bizarre. How will he know... does he really expect that his baby will have a c@c* like his? It's going to be a little itty bitty baby penis... WHAT IF he doesn't have a c@c* like his dad? What if he is born with a teeny tiny micropenis... small even on the infantile penis standard? Would he have some sort of implant or something done to the baby? Is he going to ask his teenage son to show him an erection so thy can compare their coronal ridge? Is he going to mock the guy if his is not as impressive as dad thinks his own is? And what will he do if it's not?

****

That there isn't much you can o to change it (I'm talking size and shape)- so you have to work with what you have and that for him to presume that what he has is excuse me... GODS gift to women... is totally concieted and dumb? Yes... DUMB... sure he might have an impressive coronal ridge... that's his opinion... glad he likes it- but what does that have to do with anyone else?


Hi Sarah,

um, WOW, that was kind of an unnecessary personal attack.

I am not going to go back through it and defend my DH. It isn't really worth my time to do so here, and it matters to me not at all what you think about him. But seriously, it doesn't seem necessary to be so caustic.

Quote:
It shows for one-an IGNORANCE of the FEMALE sexual response... and anatomy...

Unless a couple were to conduct their intercourse in the outer third of the vagina... the coronal ridge is something that is pretty much not even being registered in female sexual perception... so the correct answer to the question is "not that it even matters" what IS being registered is the tapping of the glans on the cervix, the stretch of the muscles of the pelvic floor and the external stimulation of the clitoris.


Again, don't understand the need for the rudeness, but...as to this issue, I am aware of the female sexual response, as is my DH, and it is precisely the outer third with which this issue is directed, actually more like the outer 1/10th (the opening itself). The ridge can definitely be felt there. But it sounds like the skin can be held back to keep the ridge exposed, so it doesn't sound like that sensation will necessarily be lost.

Another, sort of related issue, is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit, since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt). Obviously this is inversely proportional to age, though, so while it may really help out a 17 year old, it will probably work against a 45 year old. And obviously this is an incredibly minor issue in making this decision.


For both myself and DH, the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. I am still doing my research on those. I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. I feel like the closer you get to the source, the better the information is. Otherwise people can selectively point to certain studies and not to others, etc.

If it turns out, based on all the research, that we would actually be doing our son a medical disservice by keeping him intact (which, at this point I very much doubt, but I won't decide until I am as knowledgeable as I can be about it) then that must be taken into account in making the decision. Right now the main medical issue for us is STDs.

(By the way, we did look through the pictures on circumstitions last night. That was interesting to see and helpful. thanks to whoever pointed me there).



SaveTheWild is offline  
#22 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 06:54 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I don't know what you will need to research about pain...of course it hurts. But I can give you an example of some of the arguments you may hear.

One is that babies don't feel pain. All you would have to do is watch a baby getting a shot and then watch an adult get a shot and see who looks like they are feeling more pain.

Another is that babies often sleep through circ. What is happening is the baby is passing out from the pain. Adults often "go to sleep" after being in extreme pain, such as having a finger cut off. Some people say it didn't hurt because the baby didn't cry, but adults who get shot with guns don't usually cry.
Greaseball is offline  
#23 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 07:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I figure the pain one will be easier to research. From what I have researched so far, the arguemtn that babies don't feel pain is pretty much totally unsupported. So for me there is no question at all that the only way it should ever be done is with anesthesia. So the questions I need to research with respect to pain/anesthesia are 1) what are the side effects of the anesthesia, 2) what are the lingering pain effects after the anesthesia wears off 3) what long term effect would that residual pain have? I am sure there are other questions, but these are the ones that come to mind.

edited to add a few more questions: 4) how well does the anesthesia work; 5) how can you determine that it has numbed the area (its not like you can really ask the baby)
SaveTheWild is offline  
#24 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 07:10 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
The administration of anesthesia hurts. If you have ever had any dental work and had a shot of novocaine, you might know what I'm talking about. (Though I've noticed, when I have my dentist do the shot instead of the assistant, it doesn't hurt! So it might depend on the skill level of who is giving it.)

I've had some real idiots give me shots before. Some hit the wrong nerve, so instead of numbing the tooth they would numb the whole throat, while leaving all the feeling in the tooth.

What some people try and do is coat the penis with a topical anesthetic and let that take effect (can take an hour) and then give the shot. I doubt that would take away all the pain, though. Maybe it helps some.

Anesthesia swells the tissues, making an even cut difficult. The AAP recommends anesthesia if circ is being done, but not all hospitals will do it. Foreskins that have been treated with it are not eligible to be sold for use in beauty products, from what I've read on other threads here.

There are serious risks if it's not administered correctly. I think anyone wanting it done should insist on an anesthesiologist and an experienced surgeon, not an intern or a nurse.

It seems obvious that there would be some lingering pain. When teenagers want to be circed (an example are young boys who immigrate to the US and who are from countries where circ is performed on the 18th birthday) they are given general anesthesia and then have to take it easy for a while. It doesn't hurt less for babies, it's just cheaper and easier (for the adults involved) to do it that way.
Greaseball is offline  
#25 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 07:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Greaseball
The administration of anesthesia hurts. ****

What some people try and do is coat the penis with a topical anesthetic and let that take effect (can take an hour) and then give the shot. I doubt that would take away all the pain, though. Maybe it helps some.


Yeah, that's what I'd hope they'd do. I know my dentist uses something like that and it does take the edge off of the shot, though of course it still hurts some.


Quote:
I've had some real idiots give me shots before. Some hit the wrong nerve, so instead of numbing the tooth they would numb the whole throat, while leaving all the feeling in the tooth..


This is definitely a concern for me. I would definitely only consider having a very good anesthesiologist and an experienced surgeon (again, if we decide to go this route, which I doubt).


Quote:
It seems obvious that there would be some lingering pain. When teenagers want to be circed (an example are young boys who immigrate to the US and who are from countries where circ is performed on the 18th birthday) they are given general anesthesia and then have to take it easy for a while. It doesn't hurt less for babies, it's just cheaper and easier (for the adults involved) to do it that way.
Yeah, I am sure there is lingering pain. I just want to research to find out how much. (before anyone freaks out, saying, "why would you subject your baby to any pain at all", my response is, we would only choose to circumcise if we determined that it was in the best interest of the baby to do so. We would then weigh the pain (and all the other risks) against the benefits. Obviously if there is extreme pain (as there most likely is if it is done without anesthesia) that would weight much more heavily against circumcision than if there is only a small amount of pain. KWIM). As an extreme example of what I mean, If someone told me that babies felt some pain being buckled into their car seats I wouldn't choose to let them sit on the floor of the car loose... (obviously the risk/benefit analysis there is much diferent that it would be here, but you get my point).

With respect to the adult circumcision vs. infant circumcision, I would actually be surprised if the level of pain, etc. was as high in infant circumcision. ( I haven't researched this yet though, so I am just going on gut here.) There is a much larger incision for an adult (since the foreskin has obviously grown), and since clearly there would be a lot of psychological issues in the adult/teen that would be less so in an infant, and the memory issue as well, I guess.

edited to add:
A timely link posted in another thread seems to have some relevance to this issue:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...tract/92/6/791

although it is only a summary, and not the whole article, so I can't rely on it too much because I don't know the whole context. But it sems to suggest that there may be additional complications attendant to surgery performed after the neonatal period.
SaveTheWild is offline  
#26 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 07:51 PM
 
Greaseball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 8,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
When adults have elective surgery, they know what is happening and why, and they expect the pain. Babies have no idea what is going on or when it will stop; all they know is that it hurts. I think that adds to their experience of pain a great deal. I can deal with a lot of pain if I know it will be over sometime, and if I know why it's happening, but when something just hurts for no reason it's bad.
Greaseball is offline  
#27 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 08:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Greaseball
When adults have elective surgery, they know what is happening and why, and they expect the pain. Babies have no idea what is going on or when it will stop; all they know is that it hurts. I think that adds to their experience of pain a great deal. I can deal with a lot of pain if I know it will be over sometime, and if I know why it's happening, but when something just hurts for no reason it's bad.
Yeah, that is a good point. That may be true. On the other hand there is the whole "pulling off of a bandaid when you aren't looking" argument, or even, in a much more extreme example, the getting shot in the back of the head vs. the forehead... sorry, extreme I know, but for me the anticipation of pain is a terrible thing. When I know that something is about to happen that will hurt, the fear and axienty of the anticipatoin of the pain makes the pain itself worse. But i guess that wouldn't matter as much if general anesthesia was used, because then the most paoinful part would have occured while you were asleep....

But in any event, I think that young boys and adults identify a lot with their penises and I imagine that any pain in that region is magnified for that reason. Again, though, I'd have to check to see if there is any research available on it. And the medical complications of doing it later, if indeed there are any, would be a factor too.

(thanks for this back and forth Greaseball...its always good to get the mind's juices flowing, and nothing like a good discussion for that LOL. BTW, are we the only people on this darn board today or what...)
SaveTheWild is offline  
#28 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 09:05 PM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
personal attack...

might be your take on it... I see it as a direct confrontation of an issue- mainly an adult man, who by your telling is obsessed with the form/function/look of his own penis head... and a little tiny baby who is about ot be born- and perhaps mutilated due to this man's self centered view of human sexuality being based off the "ideal" which is HIM. I view the mutilation of a child for that motivation as a PERSONAL ATTACK... (upon the baby)... as such- I was incensed to think that a father could not only THINK that way- but be legally ALLOWED to make such defining decisions based on egocentric and ill informed perceptions of human sensuality.


Caustic...

perhaps... have you ever had a clamp tightened onto your genital flesh until the blood supply was killed and bloodless cutting could begin? Have you ever had your teeny tiny infant sex organ ripped and torn and turned inside out to soothe the nervous adults in the room? That's caustic mom. I'll agree that my post was caustic... caustic is as caustic does.


defend your husband...

No, you don't need to do that- I know all about what his problem is... I know what these circumcised guys are up against. I know all about it... I know what is going on in their heads- you don't have to tell me. I have a pretty good idea what happens to you when you lose a substantial portion of your sex organ and you have to grow up believing that the unnatural look of your body and the scar on your sex organ was justified somehow... that you HAVE to believe that- because otherwise the other option- it's unspeakable... Yeah- they did that to my husband too... it happens to most victims of circumcisers... thats one of the problems of cutting babies- they can't get the context to frame it all in... they are just left grasping for straws...filling in their blank.

Maybe in twenty five years your own son, all puffed up on the supremacy of his own permenantly exposed coronal ridge will have a wife who sets out to find a medical justification for cutting her son too... because surely she wouldn't want to look in the mirror at herself and think that she was just mutilating their baby for purely sexual control and learned asthetic motivations... no a little bit of medical excuse goes a long way to feel better about an unnatural fixation on the PENIS of a BABY.

need for rudeness? There is none... rudeness is rudeness... like the time I was living in an apartment building and I heard the girl downstairs being strangled and I ran down the stairs with a ball bat and chased her boyfriend out of our building... that was RUDE...barging in a girls apartment and threatening her boyfriend with a weapon. I probably should have just polietly knocked and asked them to keep it down in there. Yeah, sorry I was RUDE... can I ask how you would react if someone was talking about cutting 30- 50% of a female's errogenous flesh off?

the outer 1/10? What are we talking about here? Are you talking about A. initial penetration? Or are you talking about B. a really short penis? Or are you talking about C. having sex by repetedly penetrating and repenetrating?

If the answer is A. being penetrated by an intact man is just as pleasurable as being penetrated by a circumcised man... if your husband is under the impression that the only reason he can make a woman squeak is BECAUSE someone cut his foreskin off... I'm sorry- he is giving his circumciser a lot more credit than that slicer deserves. And I will repeat- you both seem to have a lack of knowledge about male and female sexual function because the standard that you are trying to base your understanding from is one that is artificial- surgicly created.

"it sounds like the skin can be held back to keep the ridge exposed"

Would it be too much for me to ask you two to rent a porno before you thing about destroying this sexual anatomy on another person?... before you spend another hour looking for a medical reason... if you have never even seen this anatomy in action how is it that you have any idea what you are considering doing to this boy? Could you just go to an adult store and ask for something which features an actor who is not circumcised... what's it going to hurt... it's research. Could you do that?

I mean- if you can put your X on the line to authorise a sexual mutilation, I'd think you could at least get up the courage to rent a smut flick. Aren't you curious? How can you possibly be insulted by me calling the two of you out on your ignorance when you both obviously DON'T know. Bless YOU! Bless your marriage and your innocence... curse me and my whole sordid past... but I KNOW... and you are talking about cutting your BABY and you don't even know what it is you are doing to his sex organ. HOW can you frame this decision when your knowledge of the normal unmutilated male sex organ is NONE?


" is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit"


Ahah! sexual control rears it's ugly head in the name of sexual performance... It's ok to sexually control a man if it makes him last longer... just like it's ok to sexually control a woman if it makes her submissive to her husband... I see how it is... now we are talking! Women can't be true with a clitoris... men can't sexually preform with a foreskin? Is that how it goes? What do you think happens at night in France?

"since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt)."

Hmmm... interesting- you are trying to apply your abnormal model and reason it out in terms of normal anatomy. Have you considered FOR ONE SECOND... that the reason why YOU might have the idea that "MEN" suffer from "OVERSTIMULATION" is because your idea of MEN is exactly "CIRCUMCISED MEN WHO HAD THEIR INNER SEX ORGAN TURNED INSIDE OUT" that maybe MEN don't suffer from this... maybe CIRUCMSIED MEN do?... did you ever consider for a second that maybe that dreaded "penis head inside the foreskin during intercourse"... that it might be responsible for an intact guy's ability to continue to have sex without directly stimulating his glans... that might enable an intact man to continue to have sex for prolonged amounts of time without driving off the point of no return...that a circumcised guy has no option when he gets stimulated- it's all or nothing- here we go... "DING" did the light go on for you? I'm being as explicit as I think I can get away with here.

Did you ever consider that the (ehem) "extra" sensitivity that intact men have (it's not EXTRA) what if (oh my god!) that was not just more of that out of control here it comes and I can't stop it oh darn oh baseball oh no oh yes... sensitivity... what if it was made up of nerves that were the awh-yeaaaah now here we go now that's what I'm a talking about baby walk this way talk this way like this... like this... like this... nerves? Huh? Did I make the point? Why PRESUME the negative?... that those sexual feelings contained in the unique anatomy would have resulted in LESS SEXUAL CONTROL? What if your idea of oversexed men barely in control of their orgasms is based on the abnormal model of men who are MISSING the anatomy which would have ENABLED them to be connected to their nerves without routing through scars and abnormal anatomy?

Hmmm...

Sportscar.. more speed... fistfulls of breaks... fast curves... lot's of fun...

Truckdriver... "Aw no... I don't won't drive a sportscar- what would happen if you was going down a mountain pass an' your breaks went and burnt up- what then?"

See?


"the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. "

I don't buy it for a second. Why would you feel compelled to look into it at all... you think Europeans are morons (or lousy lovers for that matter?) No medical group in the WORLD recomends this.. and you think you still need to go out and scour for a medical excuse? No... it's not medical. Here- try this one:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/

" I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. "

GREAT! Would you do me a favor while you are at it... because I have yet to get the answer... Meatal stenosis- it's a circumcision complication that hits more than one in ten circumcised boys- yet that number is not reflected in the circumcision complication statistic reported by the AAP despite the fact that Meatal Stenosis is named among twenty other issues that are named as circumcision complications. If you can get the data on that- I would love to see it. See... I don't think the AAP has given us a very fair commentary on the actual studies.


Simmering down and amazingly if you can believe it... on your side...

Love Sarah
Sarah is offline  
#29 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 09:13 PM
 
~Jenna~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by SaveTheWild
[B]Another, sort of related issue, is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit, since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt).
Wow...I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous! I'm not even sure I know what to say about that. Intact men can control themselves MUCH better than circ'd men.

Quote:
I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. I feel like the closer you get to the source, the better the information is. Otherwise people can selectively point to certain studies and not to others, etc.
Then why did you bother to come here and ask for our commentary when it doesn't matter to you?

Quote:
Right now the main medical issue for us is STDs.
Gee I'm glad my parents didn't cut off any of my parts because they thought I'd be too stupid to use good judgement and protection:.
~Jenna~ is offline  
#30 of 87 Old 02-27-2004, 10:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the flurry of angry replies was only a matter of time. . . It was good while it lasted Greaseball...


Anyway, to respond:

Jenna--

Quote:
Intact men can control themselves MUCH better than circ'd men.


If that's true, that would be great! I'll obvioulsy have to do research on that to find out.

Quote:
Then why did you bother to come here and ask for our commentary when it doesn't matter to you?


I think it is good to get ideas from as many sources as possible, and I think that productive dialog about issues is one of the very best ways to flesh out opinions and thoughts.

that said, I still think that judgements should be made by getting the best information as possible. If I wanted to find out about the outcome of a certain study, obviously the best place to do so is to read the study itself. I hope to god that people aren't making important medical decisions based only on information they get based on other people's commentary (though sadly I think some do). I am sure we have all seen many instances where the things people say are just flat out wrong.


Sarah--
I can't really respond to most of your arguments since it mostly seems just like anger and emotion. I think its great that people feel strongly about things, and I commend them for their passion. But no matter what, I will never ever make any decision that affects my child based upon the passions, anger, or opinions of other people, or, even worse, my own attempt to fit in with what other people think is the "right" way to parent. And just because somebody says that one study is a bunch of hooey and another is a shrine to the scientific method in its most perfect form, I will not believe them without doing my own independent evalution.

I will address one specific comment though:
Quote:
"the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. " I don't buy it for a second. Why would you feel compelled to look into it at all... you think Europeans are morons (or lousy lovers for that matter?) No medical group in the WORLD recomends this.. and you think you still need to go out and scour for a medical excuse? No... it's not medical.


Well, frankly I don't really care if you "buy it" or not, but in any case, that is our overriding concern. (The sexual stuff came up as a side remark, but one that people seemed to be interested in talking about. I brought up the sexual issues we have thought about because that was the topic at hand, not because it is what we will base our decision on.)

I will go down every avenue, and every path of research, and every mode of discussion to try to get the best information possible to make this important decision.

The thing I think that happens a lot in these kinds of situations is "confirmation bias". It means that if people start out with a particular bias, they will tend to seek out information that confirms that bias, and inflate its importance, while they tend to avoid searching for, ignore, or minimize information that challenges that bias. Everyone does it to a certain degree, and it is a difficult thing to fight against. but I am trying to do so. If anything I have a bias toward thinking that circumcision is "bad". But I am not going to let that blind me or my research. I will look at every angle, and try to find every arguement for why it should be done in addition to every reason why it shouldn't be done. I believe that is the only real way to make such an important decision and that any other kind of evaluation does a disservice to our children. I will never choose to do something to my child if it will harm him just to make a political statement. If I find out that all the best evidence says that it is in his best interest to have him circumsized, I will do so. If I find otherwise, I will not. Its that simple.

SaveTheWild is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off